I really enjoy this series, and the care the authors take in detail. But they got a detail seriously wrong in this one. A diabetic woman dies because the police hold her in a cell, without insulin and a syringe. Trouble is, that wouldn't happen. If you're insulin dependent, you'll die fast if you take too much insulin, but if you forget injections you'll go for up to a couple of days before going into ketosis or coma. Same error happened in the movie Conair.... seems to be a common misconception.

It's regrettable that the author of these notes appears not to be very fond of John Donne's work. Some of the notes are useful, but the "well, that wasn't very successful, was it?" tone becomes excessively irritating. Especially if one isn't "doing" Donne for A-level, but is instead just wanting to deepen one's knowledge and understanding of much-loved poems.

The copy editor of this book should be taken out and shot. There were so many errors, most of which would have been caught with a standard spell and grammar check program. I enjoyed the book, but finding mistakes on nearly every page really stopped me from getting into the story.I hope the publisher tries a lot harder on the next two volumes of the trilogy.

I gulped the 500+ pages of this book in 24 hours. It's a highly intelligent and enjoyable thriller.

The publisher, though, should be taken out and shot. First, the choice of cover, and the title change from Men Who Hate Women, is just vulgar sensationalism. Why was there a need to titillate potential buyers when dealing with an international multi-million seller?

Second, the copy editing is a disgrace. Again, with a huge best seller, couldn't they have taken more care? Other reviews have given examples of poor grammar, so I won't reproduce them. But in three places the translator uses 'anon' where the correct English would be 'then', 'later', or similar ("they got married and anon were divorced"). It's minor, but jerks you right out of the story. I gather there were feuds about the English translation, but nevertheless, good copy editing could have made the difference.

I suspect they wouldn't have got away with this had the author still been alive.

This appalling adaption is on a par with the Ikea Knightley Pride and Prejudice. All the subtlety is gone. The essence of Persuasion is principled behaviour, observation of the proprieties, feeling but not emoting. This is a 21st century version, where whatever a character feels, they declaim from the rooftops. And Davies has shuffled the text like a pack of cards. So Anne's turning-point speech of "All the privilege I claim for my own sex, and it is not a very enviable one - you need not covet it, is that of loving longest when all hope is gone", is trotted out on the first evening at Lyme, rather than at the crucial moment, in Bath, to tip Frederick into his declaration. And Frederick, by the way, spends the movie telling his chums all about his feelings, instead of just ACTING them. (Reminds me of Laurence Olivier's comment to Dustin Hoffman, after the latter had gone on a three day method acting bender to prepare for a particular scene in Marathon Man - "My dear boy, why don't you just act?") The notion of reticence is absolutely foreign to this production (as with the Knightley P&P); is it that the modern world considers reticence to be a character flaw, to be deplored?

No question - the Amanda Root version is still the definitive DVD version.

And WHY, for God's sake, did Davies use Austen's original ending, where Wentworth comes to tell Anne that Admiral Croft is offering to rescind his lease of Kellynch when she marries Mr Elliot, rather that the using the actual ending that Austen published in the novel?